Editorial Reviews

In his most controversial book yet, bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi turns his critical eye on both religious believers and the atheists who reflexively oppose them. Here, the fearless attorney who most memorably prosecuted Charles Manson indicts both camps, calling them out for the intellectual shortcuts each takes to arrive at their convenient conclusions. In the process, he argues lucidly and persuasively why agnosticism--and a healthy skepticism toward certainty of all kinds--is the most responsible position to take with regard to such eternal questions as the existence of God.

With his trademark withering wit and humor, Bugliosi skewers such popularizers of atheism as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, while also examining such developments as the decline of belief in evolution and the disturbing vengefulness of God as depicted in the Old Testament.

Vincent Bugliosi's latest book sets a new course amid the explosion of bestselling books on religion, pro and con--a middle path that urges us to recognize the limits of what we know, and what we cannot know about the ineffable mysteries of existence.

Related Reviews

Before you pay good money for this book like I did, I want you to know some things about it. First of all I greatly admire Vincent Bugliosi and consider him one of the greatest prosecutors ever. I own some of his previous books and they are exceptional. His Reclaiming History book on the JFK assassination was a monumental achievement to which he dedicated 20 years of his life. I also want you to know I'm not religious so his taking aim at Christianity in this book is not a problem for me.

Bugliosi's approach in this book by his own description is based upon logic and common sense. That's how he justifies departing from crime and courtrooms into religion as a topic for this book. He says he deserves to be heard based upon his reasoning ability alone.

He seriously skewers the Catholic church in a really exceptional chapter. He successfully shows the absurdity of many Christian / God concepts and does so in his typical hyper-critical and sarcastic ways. Much of the book consisted of this type of reasonable and entertaining analysis in areas Bugliosi is obviously comfortable with. These are readily accessible concepts familiar to most people and Bugliosi is well versed in them. That was the good.

Now for the bad and at times really bad. Bugliosi ventures into areas he readily admits he doesn't know much about like biological and cosmological science. I am not an academic or a scientist, just an informed and interested layman on those topics. Bugliosi's ignorance in them is painfully obvious to me and will be to any other similarly informed person. That lack of knowledge turns him into a babbling idiot at times. Please bear with me for just one example that is almost unbelievable coming from the pen of an intelligent man.

One thing that disturbs Bugliosi about evolution is the fact that if we truly did evolve from monkeys or apes then why do they still exist? Shouldn't they have all evolved into humans?! I'm not kidding, that is on page 64 of this book. That's like asking why when I look out into my backyard I can see both Cardinals and Blue Jays. Since one bird species evolved from another shouldn't we only have one species of bird and since birds evolved from reptiles shouldn't all the reptiles be gone?! It's so pathetic and painful I could hardly continue the book. That is far from the only example of this type. Bugliosi stumbles around badly in these areas which shows what is wrong with his thinking that "common sense" and "logic" means he deserves to be heard on topics for which he doesn't even have a beginner's understanding.

His last chapter called "Bookends" was awful. He clearly is unqualified to speak about anything related to science or mathematics (he plays with probabilities). I was embarrassed for him.

So some of the book is good and enjoyable, some of it is awful. I don't think it is worth the price of a hardcover edition so maybe you should wait to buy it bargain or get it from a library.

Many people are familiar with Bugliosi as a brilliant attorney who also wrote about the murderers he prosecuted in court (think Charles Manson: "Helter Skelter;" Lee Harvey Oswald: "Reclaiming History," etc) but this book about the question of God's existence is perhaps his greatest challenge ever. In it he offers an intelligent debate, neither for nor against the verity of God's existence, but for the neutrality of agnosticism as the only logically sound conclusion. Confronting both ends of the "God question" pendulum, from slavish Christian beliefs to trendy spiritual and scientific attitudes, and much in between, he comprehensively demonstrates how common sense isn't really that common. He takes the historical and contemporary "experts" in divine matters to task and reveals how the hard questions have been ignored, brushed aside, or inadequately thought through. There is much to consider within the fruits of this book's cogent abundance, yet the author's consummate use of ordinary language and down-to-earth examples makes this an accessible book, and one that may prompt more than the occasional metaphorical smack on the head in self-abashed agreement.

As he maintains in the book, Bugliosi is by nature a critical person. He finds and attacks what he precieves to be the weaknesses in atheist and theist arguments, and I really got the sense while reading the book that he's the type of person who strives to be as objective as humanly possible.

I felt that the weakest part of the book was the discussion of evolution - several times Bugliosi objects that he cannot imagine a bacteria evolving into Mozart, but of course, evolutionists believe the process happened gradually over billions of years, so to phrase the claim in such a way sets up a strawman. Bugliosi errors again by thinking "locally" about cats and dogs (why haven't they changed in the last 10,000 years, he asks?) when they have a great deal, genetically speaking! In fact, the genetic arguments for evolution are completely left undiscussed by Bugliosi.

Despite this flaw, this book is comendable for two reasons. #1, since there is very little hard evidence that points in either direction of "a god's" existence, Bugliosi's common sense objections serve him fairly well here. And #2, his willingness to take on either side of the debate and outright offend those of either viewpoint that he deems as foolish, is a breath of fresh air in a debate where there is often a lot of back slapping and "supporting your own team". Bugliosi is a truth teller (or at least he makes his best attempt to be), and that's about the highest compliment I can give someone when it comes to debate.

Having an interest in the subject matter of this book - and based on Vince Bugliosi's reputation, I bought the Kindle version of the book without downloading and reading the sample. Bad mistake. In this book, Mr Bugliosi disagrees with everyone who has an opinion different from his own - including experts in fields where he freely admits he has little or no expertise. His reason? Common sense. For example, with regard to evolution he states "...every writer I personally have read on the subject clearly has lacked, in my opinion, the ability to communicate his alleged knowledge of Darwin's theory. In other words, as is so often the case in life, these writers are markedly inept in their ability to impart to others what they claim to know." I would suggest that perhaps Mr. Bugliosi doesn't have a fundamental understanding of science that would allow him to comprehend higher concepts - or else he's dumber than a rock. I could give many other examples of his arrogance and his mocking tone of writing, but it's better for the reader to discover them.
I do applaud Mr. Bugliosi for admitting that he doesn't know if God exists; however, I do wonder why he makes that concession - he clearly thinks he knows everything else.
I would highly recommend that the prospective buyer download the sample of this book or browse through it at a local bookstore before purchasing it - or perhaps just ask a stranger on the street what he thinks about the existence of God. I expect his opinion will be just as valuable as Mr. Bugliosi's opinion (and that's ALL he states in this book) - and it will certainly cost less.

This book will make you think about long-held, seldom-challenged beliefs. We are often admonished to not discuss politics or religion. In this book, Bugliosi takes religion head-on. But rather than trot out the typical lame "arguments" or engage in emotional rants, Bugliosi examines religious doctrines, statements, beliefs, and dogma the way a prosecuting attorney would examine the statements and evidence brought before a court.

Bugliosi, in case you don't know, was the prosecuting attorney on the Charles Manson case. He is also the author of Helter Skelter and some other books.

Much of what passes for "discussion" on religion is mere posturing and absurdity. Most who "discuss" religious matters spew forth someone else's poor arguments and (knowingly or not) use classic propaganda techniques in an effort to defend a particular position rather to arrive at the truth (that's also true in politics). That is not to say most people are deliberate liars. The problem is they aren't deliberately seeking the truth. Bugliosi, in this book, is.

Some of the "arguments" that Bugliosi shreds bring the reader to the dilemma of trying to decide if those "arguments" are comical or pathetic. These "arguments" are rendered by influential people and widely accepted. If you look at the consequences throughout history, you'll see why this matters. Not sure of what consequences I'm talking about? Bugliosi will help you with that, when you read this book.

What he doesn't go into, though, is the positive side of being a believer (in whatever religion). Belonging to a group wherein people support and respect each other is advantageous. Membership has its privileges. Without the shared beliefs (fictional or not), would they be better off? In many cases, the answer is a resounding no.

Of course, that is not a defining argument that justifies religions or believing. Nor do the positives, in net, balance out the negatives he mentions. I'm merely pointing out that there are benefits and positives, and for some people these are profound. Then again, this book isn't about whether people should en masse quit their religions. It's about examining what religions tell us.

Bugliosi and I are both of Italian heritage, but neither of us is Catholic. Does the idea of a non-Catholic Italian seem odd? But why is it that so many Italians are Catholic in the first place?

Is it because they embarked on an exhaustive examination of various religions and decided on that one, or because being Catholic is what's expected due to geography and/or heritage? If you've answered that question correctly, you have insight into why most people happen to be of one particular religious persuasion or another. It has nothing to do with actually weighing the evidence, though people who convert from one religion to another may think they are the exception.

In Divinity of Doubt, Bugliosi weighs the evidence for several major religions. All of the religions catastrophically fail to be supported by the evidence that they claim supports them. And all fail to make coherent, logical arguments showing they are anything other than fiction. Bugliosi does not, however, engage in the nonsequitor that the lack of verity in religion equals evidence that there is no God. He also examines atheism and finds it does not make a case either.

So what is Bugliosi's point? Is he saying there is a God or not? To answer that, we must go back to the court room. If the question of "Is God a fiction?" is on trial, Bugliosi establishes a reasonable doubt on that score. He's not saying there isn't a God. He's saying nobody has proven there isn't a God and nobody has proven there is. Exactly how he says these things is what makes this book such a compelling read.

I was surprised at some of the things Bugliosi said, however. For example, early in the book he says he has never used a computer (at least, I recall that--but cannot find where he said it as I write this review). By this, I assume he means a desktop or laptop computer. For a man who can ask such intelligent questions, this failure to use what has, for more than a decade, been a standard tool of information and communication strikes me as incongruent (at best).

This issue recurred to me later in my reading. It helps explain the anomalies that cropped up occasionally. A revised edition would edit those anomalies out. I won't mention what they are; those of us who have joined the information age can spot them easily enough. Note to Vince: it's not too late to get with the program. Your age group is among the most ardent of computer users.

Bugliosi doesn't take a disinterested, academic approach to his writing. He's quite engaging, as if he's talking directly to the reader instead of to some abstract someone. It may be a detraction that he uses sarcasm and scorn to underline many of his points, though it seems to me that the victims of these abuses had it coming due to their own lack of respect for their readers/listeners.

Overall, this book provides an excellent analysis of widely accepted delusions, lies, and absurdities that most people simply refuse to examine. It's not that people are too stupid to do this. When you're taught from an early age that you'll burn in hell for doubting (not having faith), then you get in the habit of just accepting the propaganda. There's not much penalty for accepting and you don't run the risk that the threats will be manifest upon you. But is this how we really want to live? I hope you'll join Bugliosi in exploring this question.

This book is 326 pages long and consists of 19 chapters plus two chapters called "Bookends" (two epilogues) and a Notes section (not references but further discussion).

Reviewed by Susan Ravagni, Book Reviewer for BookPleasures.com and Author of I'm Just a Girl

From the NY Times Bestselling Author of Helter Skelter, Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi pens his latest courtroom-type analysis. On trial this time: God or, if you like, god.

Many books have been written, perhaps too numerous to count, concerning the existence of God. Bugliosi acknowledges this and addresses the question, "why another book?" fairly early on. He contends that previous authors have had a biased view: either they are Christian apologists such as C.S. Lewis or they are myopic atheists, the likes of Richard Dawkins and his ilk. Bugliosi asserts that he comes with little or no bias. He is agnostic, meaning he doesn't know for certain one way or the other. So with his trial lawyer background and agnostic bent, he feels he can enter the fray.

And oh boy, does he.

First tackled are the basic arguments for there being a god: the teleological (the tired, old "a watch has to have a watchmaker") argument and the cosmological (everything has a first cause, even the Big Bang) argument. He reasons that the cosmological argument is a more sound and reasonable contention in the debate for god's existence. I tended to agree with him; but then, he had me at "hello".

In a very well-researched manner, he negotiates the topics of the Christian god: Jesus and God the Father. He makes a pretty good case (one that I, in my own secret heart of hearts have pondered) that the Father (let's call him Big Daddy) is a monumental jerk. If I was sitting next to Bugliosi on a stage somewhere, I'd be scooting a good distance away to avoid the lightening bolts that Big Daddy is getting ready to hurl down (I'm typing here with a smile on my face, just so you know I'm kidding... kind of).

Bugliosi takes on the authenticity of the Bible and the ridiculousness of religions such as Catholicism and Fundamental Protestantism. He also turns a critical eye upon Judaism and Islam since, at the core, they have the same god with some variations thrown in. To keep it even-handed, he devotes a few pages each to Hinduism and Buddhism.

The extensive use of endnotes caused much flipping back and forth while reading. Although I was a bit aggravated that on one page I had to flip back four times to read all the endnotes, I loved every minute of it and wouldn't have skipped over a single word.

In the end, I would say that Bugliosi's work is intelligent, thought-provoking and superstition-challenging. I highly recommend this book to all adults who grew up under the aegis of the "the church" and are recovering from its paradigm.

Possibly worth a read (or at least a quick scan) if interested in the topic but not worth a purchase at hardcover prices. To me this had the feel of an opportunistic book that was quickly written with an eye to tapping into the recent popularity of works critical of religion. I'm an agnostic so have no philosophical axe to grind with Bugliosi. My complaint is his lazy scholarship combined with an overbearingly obnoxious attitude to anyone who's ever expressed a pro or con opinion on the topic and doesn't happen to be him. On topics he doesn't understand he seems to think he can logic his way through - even though others more knowledgeable could enlighten him where he's confused if he'd done a little more reading before he took to writing. Like a previous reviewer I was also amazed at the "if we're descended from monkeys why are monkeys still here" argument. If a man feels justified in charging the price this book costs he should be willing to do a little more research on the topic. The answer to the monkey question (and many others) that so perplexed Bugliosi has been thoroughly answered and is not beyond the comprehension of any intelligent person provided they do their homework. This is lazy stuff. The other thing I would add is that the tone of this book is remarkably cutting and arrogant given the fact that he hardly has a scholar's knowledge on many of the topics he tries to tackle. I left this book feeling like he was a somewhat unpleasant man I really didn't want to spend any more time with. He rips into people who have a much better grasp of the topics than he does. Still, he is an intelligent man and it is at least somewhat interesting to get these well-worn arguments from a lawyer's perspective, if for no other reason than to see the limitations of his approach.

I am a graduate of Jerry Falwell's fundamentalist Liberty University so I know first-hand the subject of religion and the bible. I met Mr. Bugliosi recently at North Hollywood library and he's always interested me as a lawyer, writer and speaker. When I made my journey from fundamentalism to freedom, and I realized a lot of what I was indoctrinated with by the Religious Right wasn't true, I had to find my footing again. I discovered many of the atheists who saw the pitfalls of religion were just as militant and mocking of those who disagreed as the Falwellian fundamentalists were. They were remarkably similar and strident. Vincent does a good job of showing how both camps, the militant atheists and the militant religious folks, traffic in certainty, demonize their opponents, and cover up their own fallibilities. I heard about this book because readers of my recently released novel "Stick Man," a coming-of-age novel about a young man's deconversion from fundamentalism told me "Bugliosi's book does in non-fiction what your novel Stick Man does in fiction, shows the moral bankruptcy of religion without glorifying the other extreme." In my life, I haven't thrown out the baby with the bathwater, I still have faith, but the God I worship today is a God of universal, unconditional love for everyone.
Amicably, Richard Rossi
Author of the best-selling novel "Stick Man," available at Amazon

1) Gives voice to the obvious, most of which has been iterated and reiterated by both sages and fools on the subject over the ages. Though, Mr. Bugliosi does have an undeniable talent for making a case in the style and manner of a seasoned trial lawyer.
2) Not at all professional and scholarly, which is ay o.k. if you're primarily writing to the masses, but not if you're audience are both the masses and the highly educated and well informed.
3) Unbelievably embarrassing when delving into the sciences, particularly on the subject of evolution. Mr. Bugliosi needs to at least enroll in a few community college starter courses in the life sciences before recklessly spouting off on matters he is almost entirely ignorant of. I couldn't help blushing for him. It's almost as if he lives in a shell, coming out only for experiencing and sampling things that fit his biases and preconceived notions.
4) One can only conclude that Mr. Bugliosi is a vicious, mean spirited, and arrogant human being. Yes, one might say, but believers and defenders of organized religion, especially Christianity, have it coming, when you consider the enormous horrors, suffering, cruelty that have befallen humankind as a result of their blind faith and zeal. But this is not what I am talking about. Scholars know how to make their case in a manner befitting civilized, educated gentleman. Bugliosi's hubris and pointedness is in no way appealing. It is just increasingly annoying and off-putting.

I have always wondered why Christian theologians believe that complex theology is required to explain a faith that should be clear to everyone if it truly has merit. Bugliosi destroys that notion by addressing the big questions using clear, concise, and well-reasoned arguments that we have all considered from time to time. He does not claim to be expert on some of the topics included in his book but he articulately defends his positions with clarity and rock-solid reasoning as you would expect from a lawyer of his caliber. I was struck by how he holds God responsible for "condemning us and our loved ones to death" only to find ourselves in "God's house" (e.g. church) at the funeral spending most of the time praising God and Jesus for their goodness. He correctly notes that this behavior would arguably justify commitment in a mental institution. But I feel that his most cogent argument comes from the notion that it is not rational to worship a purported being that at best fails to prevent terrible things from happening or, at the very least, allows them to happen in the first place, a point made very cogently by Professor James Hall in his Philosophy of Religion course offered through the Teaching Company. Professor Hall says it all comes down to, "Even if he (or it) exists, is he worthy of worship", a point that Bugliosi drives home again and again and a notion that has pushed me to the threshold of atheism. Consider, for example, the recent category 5 tornado that just slammed into a hospital in Jopin, Missouri. Bugliosi pulls no punches in his critique of the irrational nature of Catholicism in particular and the pain and suffering that its followers have endured for centuries. I would urge you to give this book a chance and not be overly influenced by the negative reviews. Bugliosi is obviously a very intelligent man and a very clear thinker that has given the material a great deal of thought. He has much to say in this book that I found to be very worthwhile.

After reading Divinity of Doubt, and reading the 39 reviews, my conclusions are that I enjoyed the book and agree with many of its conclusions, but I also agree with most of the criticisms. Here's what I got out of the book:

1. Whether or not God exists is unknowable. Choose to believe or choose not to believe. Either choice is a logical choice, which can be representative of the highest level of human intelligence.
2. If you're going to accept, respect (and perhaps worship) a God, then be certain that everything about that God is consistent with a loving God that treats each and every human being with love and kindness (think treat others as you would want to be treated; no cruelty, no meanness, no revenge, no prejudice, no hatred, no murder, no injury, respect for personal freedom and individual choice, etc.)
3. If you're going to accept, respect, and be a follower of a religion, then be certain that religion is connected to the God described in #2 above, and that everything about that religion (beliefs, writings, teachings, rules of behavior for itself and its followers, etc.) be consistent with love and kindness towards each and every human being (think treat others as you would want to be treated; no cruelty, no meanness, no revenge, no prejudice, no hatred, no murder, no injury, respect for personal freedom and individual choice, etc.)
4. For Believers, there's no need to give up your belief in God. Just be certain that what you believe and know about your God represents a "good" and loving God who is good and loving to each and every human being.
5. For Believers, there's no need to give up being a follower of a specific religion. Just be certain that your religion supports and teaches respect and love for each and every human being, and that it behaves in the same manner.
6. For Non-believers, there's no need to criticize a belief in God. Admit that whether God exists or not is unknowable. If you're going to accept that God doesn't exist, then also respect other people's belief that God does exist. Judge how people behave towards one another, not whether they believe or do not believe in God, or whether or not they are followers of a religion based on that God.

I went out and bought this book in hard cover as soon as I heard about it, as I am very interested in the subject. It was well worth the money. I gave it four stars, because I thought it did have some flaws, although they were greatly outweighed by the pluses. I see the flaws as:

1. Too many pages of endless paragraphs of prose. While interesting, it was sometimes hard for me to easily extract and objectify what he was saying, as it does get pretty deep into philosophy. I would have liked to see some more cognitive aids such as lists, summaries, or emphasis of the author's most salient points.

2. All too often he resorts to the 'straw man' tactics, and attacks positions people do not actually hold. This is especially true when he talks of Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, and chides them for being atheists. He knows very well that each of the three has never denied the possibility of the existence of a supreme being, they only find it doubtful that any man has produced are the true creating force in the universe. They are only atheists in this regard.

3. When making points, at times he stacked the cards a little, giving only the evidence for his chosen point of view, and ignoring other equally compelling evidence for the opposite. For instance, he states that Jesus probably existed as a man, but fails to note that no one alive at the time noticed him or his miracles. It is hard to believe that if the dead arose from the grave and walked around Jerusalem upon his death, nobody noticed. I have to think that SOMEBODY would have said "Hey honey, I was down at the bath today, and I saw your Uncle Seth who passed away four years ago. What's up with that?" That there is not a shred of contemporary evidence for his having lived more than strains credibility.

Having said all that, the list of positives is much longer. The positives in my opinion are:

1. Bugliosi is obviously a very intelligent, creative, and motivated man. The book shows it.
2. He is a terrific writer.
3. His argument is comprehensive, consistent, and based on sound reasoning.
4. The book is extremely well researched. It is one of the few books that I took the time to read all the foot and end notes.
5. His book is timely, as the rise of science and knowlege is eroding the blind acceptance of authority and tales of the apocrypha.

Overall - an excellent book, and I highly recommend it to anyone even mildly interested in the subject. Good job, Vince!

I have read approximately two thirds of the book so I have to give it (or myself) an "incomplete" because of that. So far, I have enjoyed it and have found it reasonable in some areas, not so much in others.

I like the lawyerly approach of Mr. Bugliosi and agree that his is a rational way of looking at the question of whether or not God exists, and if He does, what kind of God He is. I'm looking forward to finishing the book and would recommend it to those who want to hear one very intelligent person's approach to the question.

Emersed in fundamentalism from birth by a loving, unmarried mother, fear of death based largely on biblical interpretation, had a considerable negative impact on my life. Once I was able to accept the belief that the Bible was not the word of God, that life itself was a giant trap, and I was able to admit that I couldn't prove or didn't know where I came from, and I didn't know where I was going when I died, (although now at the age of 73, it took me 40 years to draw these conclusions), I have still had difficulty admitting to my family and friends that I clearly, in all honesty, do not believe in the Christian God.

In my search for the reasons I did not like the confusing, contridictory, (angry/loving) God I served, it seems I would have found writings that would have summed-up the transformation of my belief system, but I never found a book so defining, consise, and honest as Bugliosi does in the Divinity of Doubt. His style, substance and clarity is amazing and his approach has proven invaluable to me because I needed someone to say what has needed to be said in the way Bugliosi says it. His book seems to have given me the strength to break the remaining link of conformity to my religous past and associations. When I'm asked if I believe in God, I now respond with certainty and without fear, "not in the Christian God". As for time & space and the existence of man, "it is incomprehensible to me". I am agnostic.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who seriously and honestly needs to resolve his belief system, attempts to rationalize the state of man, and/or fears a vengeful, wrathful, judging God followed by the timeless condition of eternity.

I've read and enjoyed some of Bugliosi's other works and was looking forward to this one. Now, I am still stunned by how awful and poorly-written it was.

The majority of the book seems to be ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments. Coupled with Bugliosi's lack of understanding about several of the subjects he brings up, it makes for a very irritating read. The only interesting thing about this book is seeing the sort of tricks a good prosecutor must use in court applied to writing. On the rare occasion when he does make a good point, he repeats it over and over again, literally dozens of times, with barely altered phrasing. If he hadn't said he doesn't use a computer and does all his writing longhand, I would have suspected him of overuse of cut-and-paste.

On of the most annoying facets of the book is that Bugliosi comes up with his own definitions for words and phrases that don't match up with reality. (Anytime you see "common sense" you can safely substitute "popular superstition".) He also claims that anyone calling themselves an Atheist "believes" there is no god... no "probably" or "reasonably certain" about it, thereby setting up one of his many straw-man arguments. He also admits near-complete ignorance about several subjects (computers, biology, evolution, etc.) and then goes on to make absolute judgements about them based on his erroneous assumptions.

I would advise anyone who is well-read and educated, whether believer or not, to avoid wasting their money on this mish-mash of Bugliosi's personal prejudices.

Of the two books I bought recently on doubt, this one is not only greatly inferior but also badly uninformed about the topic. It makes several critical errors and the author is out of his depth much of the time. I agree with other reviewers who say that Bugliosi is a much better trial lawyer than an authority on religious doubt. The other book was The Age of Doubt: Tracing the Roots of Our Religious Uncertainty, written by a scholar of the Victorian period who clearly knows the material inside-out. His book is not just deeply researched but also wonderfully readable to boot. Of the two, it's clear to me which will make a lasting contribution to this rich and fascinating subject.

As a long time reader of Vincent Bugliosi's works and a person interested in peoples' need to have a religion, I thought this book might be interesting. However, Bugliosi starts almost right off replacing facts with his opinions.

His first flaw that gave me pause was in his description of atheists as people who want to destroy all religion. That is patently not true. Atheists use science and common sense to come to the conclusion that an imaginary, magic person in the sky is not necessary to have formed the earth and all life on it. They just don't want religious people using their clout to infuse government or everyday life with their beliefs.

His second blatant error that made me stop reading the book was in his doubts of the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution. Unbelievably, he uses the old creationist diatribe of "if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" With this, I put the book down with no interest in picking it up again.

Mr. Bugliosi has no authority or background to write a book of this kind and should have known better than to use his opinions as stated fact.

You would expect an author to be knowledgeable about his subject. Bugliosi clearly knows very little about religion and demonstrates it throughout the book. He thinks sarcastic language is the answer to everything. If you are a non-believer and want someone to tell you that you have correct thinking then buy this book. This book will be popular for those who disdain religion. The others will get nothing out of it.

If you want a well thought out discussion of religion look elsewhere. The author delights in his own intelligence and insight. To him everyone else is somewhat of a fool. Reading this book I got the feeling that this was a "vanity" book. I would not be surprised to learn that the author paid the publisher to publish it. I believe that the market who will like this book will be very small. My suggestion is to go to a store, flip through the book, read a few passages and then you will see what I am writing about. Don't be foolish enough to buy without reading some of it.

It is not only that I disagree with what he says, but that he just says it so poorly. If you want a better discussion of non-belief there are much better authors out there.

This is an easy to read book with logic and reason as its main focal point.

This book isn't for those who wish to continue to believe in sheer nonsense.

Bugliosi, whether intentional or not had me laughing a lot about the many contradictions and silly ideas that so many "believers" have.

Yes, there are some weaknesses to the book (too much ego for example) however in the end it's a great book that all ought to read. I'm only giving it a 4 star due to some weak chapters where the author goes off track for a short while.

Thank you Vincent Bugliosi for a well written and needed book and I highly recommend anyone with an open mind to read it.

Mr Bugliosi's reliance on "common sense" rather than scientific analysis of Darwinism and his decision to pass judgement on evolutionary biology in general with little more than a layman's understanding of the subject was disappointing. (Common sense is the formal term for "it seems right TO ME, even though I really don't know what I'm talking about and have no real data to back it up.) The "no one has proved Darwinism to me, though I really don't understand Darwinism" argument is ridiculous and the remainder of the book was only slightly better. "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and the bit about not seeing bacteria being able to evolve into Mozart...YEESH!

Vincent Bugliosi's new book "Divinity of Doubt" started out as a logical affirmation of centralist deep thinking as he laid down his cogent arguments supporting an agnostic attitude about the existence of God. I thought that I had finally found a person who was able to articulate what I have been thinking for many years. It has been a very long time since somebody has written such a compelling thesis exposing the absurdity of faith-based non-thinking, and it was also refreshing that he decried the atheist faithful.

He totally had me convinced that he was a deep and educated thinker until he started his rant about evolution. His ignorance of the subject was disappointing to say the least. It made me nearly stop reading and want to throw my Kindle in the trash. But I perservered and read on and was well rewarded with his knowledge of the Bible and other religions, but continued to be disappointed with his agnosticism agenda.

Bugliosi seems to take the position that agnosticism should be given status as a worthy "cause". Rather than just promoting an agnostic attitude toward a particular subject, eg. God, he demonstrates that ignorance of a subject, eg. evolution, gives him license to claim to be agnostic about the subject. It is as though he is an advocate for agnosticism as a substitute for ignorance. Except for this brief anomoly in his thinking, he makes cogent and compelling arguments for subjects in which he is well educated, and therefore the book is a recommended read.

Vincent Bugliosi does a proper courtroom analysis of the "reality of god" as outlined in the old and new testaments and concludes that if "he exists" the good books do a lousy job of making the case. However atheists don't altogether convince Bugliosi that they have incontroverable evidence that "he" does not.Being an agnostic he claims is the proper position at least for him. God may or may not exist but "he" gets no help in convincing any body with a brain from what is written in scriptures. As Bugliosi points out, Gertrude Stein wrote "There ain't no answer. There ain't going to be any answer. There never has been an answer.That's the answer."

From the get-go, I must admit that Divinity of Doubt: The God Question is my kind of reading. The reason is simple. This well stated 5-star book examines the possibility of God's existence by contrasting it with the impossibility of His Existence. Author Bugliosi is a thinker in this sense: he refuses to consider anything as truthful except that which is reasonable to the human mind.

Divinity of Doubt supposes we have a mind; but deny that and we have utter nothingness which we know is unreasonable. Moving on from there, Bugliosi begins to annihilate ALL religion including, Catholicism, Protestantism, Jewish Religions, Oriental Beliefs, Muslimism and -isms in general.

How can he so easily wipe out all this doctrine with one fell swoop of his hand. Simple! Every religion known to man is a priori. This means that belief in any religious system accepts proof that the tenets it holds are justifiable and verifiable, because those tenets say they are justifiable and verifiable. In many cases, religious doctrine is built like a pyramid on some already believed, mythical, questionable fact, like the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill.

So many religious -isms today descend from the basic Biblical fact in Genesis that God 1) created the cosmos. How do we know that to be truth? Because in the beginning verses of the Bible, 2) the Word states the fact that an Almighty Creator made all things. How do we know the Bible is inspired by God? Because 3) the Bible says so. How do we know god created the cosmos, oops, we've been here before, haven't we, because we have statement number 1) all over again!

This is like a wheel of fortune. Give it a spin and whatever religion the indicator points to is the winner of truth. Why? Because each space SAYS it is the truth. This is akin to religious belief today. Spinning the religions wheel is similar to believing the pointer because of where you were raised from childhood, and what religion your parents forced upon you.

Divinity of Doubt: The God Question states reasonable proofs for 1) the all powerful, all knowing God (theism) and 2) the non existent God (atheism). Reading how author Bugliosi demolishes both beliefs is quite amusing. An example: theists profoundly believing in an all perfect God who is imperfect enough to allow the earthquake/tsunami in Japan to take place, or even the heinous holocaust. Then too, we have reduction to absurdity when atheists deny that God exists, but they themselves have existence from, from, from what? from nothingness?

Divinity of Doubt: The God Question is an excellent book. I very highly recommend its researched material for study, not lightly; because it outlines the horrors religion has nailed through reason's hands and feet. Look around the world today to see the painful crowns of thorns Israel and Jerusalem are attempting to beat down on each other's brows in the name of religion. Then look at Pakistan, Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria. But do not just look at the battles taking place, look at the real underlying reasons why--differences in religious and subsequent moral beliefs.

Vincent Bugliosi's Divinity of Doubt: The God Question would have all peoples share an agnostic view of the world. A view that says, for the sake of humanity, let's stop killing one another in the name of religion. We are here; we are what we are; we are alive, and although we are reasonable, we must live with the ugliest, cruelest dichotomy of all time--we will never know the answer to the God Question.

I thought everything under the sun hasn't been written about God. I was wrong. Chapter by chapter there were new revelations. Age old questions that are disected and answered in a way that may startle the reader. This is not what I was taught in Sunday school.

Some might say Bugliosi is a trial lawyer and what does he know about God. Why is he writing this book? I have to say that after reading "Helter Skelter" and some of his other books he is the right guy to write this book. He does his homework. Combs through everything, finding and revealing new evidence. From "First Cause" to "Free Will" I learned new information in an interesting humorous manner. I would recommend this book to anyone who either believes in God or doesn't believe in God. People who live their lives by the word of the Bible should give their full attention to this book. I have relatives in the Bible belt that need to read "Divinity of Doubt". From whatever background you arrive, this book might just shatter all pre-conceived notions. Thumbs up. Great job!

I speak as an agnostic, not an atheist 4 even atheists have no evidence as 2 the non-existence of God. As 2 Vincent Bugliosi's credentials 4 the accuracy of the contents of his book, I will always defer 2 a person of his intellect over Christian fairy tales espoused by those who appear 2 B mentally challenged because of their "immature" beliefs. The bottom line will remain.....I cannot prove that God does not exist nor can anyone prove that he does exist. C'est la vie.

I always thought that Bugliosi's massive "Reclaiming History" conclusively proved that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy. However, his new book on religion, Divinity of Doubt, is so poorly researched and so ineptly argued that it casts doubt on the Kennedy book. In fact, at this point I'm open to the idea that JFK's death was engineered by a conspiracy involving the Mafia, the CIA, Castro, the Easter Bunny, and Liberace.
A few observations about this book:
1. Bugliosi comes across as a mean son of a gun. He keeps up a relentless attack against Billy Graham, even though Graham is quite elderly, infirm, and hasn't actively ministered in many years. (Choosing Graham as a target does give Bugliosi innumerable opportunities to rhyme "Billy" and "silly".) Perhaps his meanness is most clearly displayed when he talks about 9/11. He notes that in the wake of that catastrophe, many people sought consolation in prayer services--which he tags as "overwhelming stupidity". The book reaches its nadir of cruelty when Bugliosi quotes a 9/11 widow talking about how God allowed her husband's death to draw people closer to Himself. Bugliosi characterizes her faith as "psychotic". This is simply vile, and Bugliosi should be deeply ashamed of himself.
2. The very brief chapter on Islam is telling. After calling Christianity "absurd", "psychotic", "certifiable and commitable insanity", "zany" (I kind of like that one, actually--makes me feel like SpongeBob!), "lunacy", and "crazy" for several hundred pages, Bugliosi gets to Islam...and suddenly the tone is very measured, very respectful, very objective. The pages on Islam are as cool and calm as an encyclopedia article (although most encyclopedias would not misidentify Muahmmad's first wife as Aiesha--she was, of course, Khadijah, Aiesha coming much later). No abusive language, and only the very mildest critique. Indeed, he actually defends Islam from charges of violence. This is the double standard we expect in our society today, of course--Christianity is massacred while Islam is treated with kid gloves. Bugliosi manages to make Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins look like titans of courage by comparison--in their critiques of religion, they spared no one.
Here's a parable about Bugliosi's treatment of Christianity and Islam: There once was a schoolyard bully named Vince. One day, he scanned the schoolyard and spotted two kids. One was a skinny, weak, shy, meek kid who never fought back...Christian was his name. The other was a big, burly kid who would rip Vince's lungs out if Vince messed with him...let's call him Moe. Vince mercilessly tormented Christian, the shy, meek, skinny kid. And Moe? Vince called Moe: "Sir".
3. Bugliosi talks about punishment after death, and complains that there is no Biblical support for the idea that God makes the punishment fit the crime--i.e., there is no proportionality. He obviously missed Luke 12:47-48, where Chirst clearly teaches proportionate judgement
4. A very minor point, but one that is very indicative: Bugliosi rips apart an unnamed scholar from a "major eastern university" for suggesting that Jesus, in speaking of the "Son of Man", is talking about someone other than Himself. Then Bugliosi cites several Bible passages where Jesus says, "I, the Son of Man". This exposes one of the major problems with this book: it is written with an overwhelming arrogance whose weight cannot be supported by the poor research. First--the idea that the "Son of Man" sayings refer to someone other than Jesus is not a recent suggestion by someone from "a major eastern university"; it's been a staple of New Testament scholarship for almost a hundred years (as the most superficial research would have shown!). Second--none of the passages Bugliosi cites has "I, the Son of Man" in the original Greek. The translation he's using adds the "I" to clarify that Jesus is talking about himself. If Bugliosi had simply used more than one Bible translation--always a good practice for someone who can't read the Bible in the original-- this horrible mistake would have never happened. Bugliosi likes the word "embarrassment", and this passage is truly an embarrassment for him--he is savagely criticizing a scholar from a position of complete, absolute ignorance. (By the way, I actually agree with Bugliosi--Jesus was referring to himself when he said "Son of Man". But the way Bugliosi critiques the opposite position shows an utter ignorance about the issues).
5. Bugliosi gives what he thinks is a conclusive refutation of the Virgin Birth of Christ--and then feels that he has thereby destroyed Christianity, since Jesus couldn't be the Son of God if He wasn't born of the Holy Spirit and a Virgin. Nonsense. Jesus is the Son of God from all eternity, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He didn't start being the Son of God 2,000 years ago; He has always been the Son of God. The Virgin Birth did not make Him the Son of God--it revealed Him as the Son of God. (Think of the rank insignia of a soldier--the stripes do not make someone a sergeant, they show that someone is a sergeant). God could have sent Christ in this world as the child of Mary and Joseph, with no Virgin Birth, and He still would be the Son of God. (I certainly believe in the Virgin Birth--but it doesn't have the absolute centrality in Christian theology that Bugliosi gives it. It's nowhere near as essential as the resurrection. Now if Bugliosi could produce the body of Jesus...then we'd have a conversation! But he can't--because Christ is risen!)
6. Bugliosi seems seriously confused about the concept of original sin. He is amazed at the notion that God created humanity in His own image, since humanity is so messed up. But if one believes in original sin, this is a false objection--humanity's dysfunction did not come from God the creator. Bugliosi talks a lot about how wretched and dishonest human beings are --thereby unwittingly presenting the concept of original sin! He also talks about how things in the world always seem to go wrong--again, a great testimony to original sin. He doesn't believe it intellectually, but in his heart he seems to know it's true!
7. Not to be too PC, but isn't the incessant use of language like "crazy" and "lunacy" a little insensitive to people with emotional issues?
8. Finally, it's ironic that a book dedicated to the idea that you can't really know much of anything has such an arrogant and self-assured tone.
A few positives: As a Lutheran, I appreciated the fact that Bugliosi says that Lutheranism is closer to Scripture than Roman Catholicism (he didn't mean this as a compliment, since he regards the Bible as basically unhinged). I also found his little anecdote about his cat Sherlock moving. It humanizes someone who in the book comes across as pretty vicious.

Mr. Bugliosi has done an excellent job "presenting his case" for agnosticism. While, unfortunately, many people will never bother reading past the first few pages, if that far, it is a book that should be read by everyone, if for no other reason than to see how various religious views come off to those who are not members of a particular faith. and how off-putting some of those views can be. If you have a strong belief in God, this book should change nothing; hopefully, it will make you think a little bit more about the difference between sprituality and religion.

(Note: This reviewer is Teresa, not Stephen.) As an agnostic, I bought Bugliosi's book thinking that he would, as an attorney who is also a colorful and clear writer, present a good and concise case for agnosticism. Would one not expect as much from a man whose career has depended on impeccable logic (combined with the right emotional appeal, since a jury is after all composed of emotional human beings)? To my disappointment, he did not do so, and in fact he didn't even deliver anything close to what he had promised in the intro to the book.

The overarching deficiency that struck me was Bugliosi's claim that this would be a broad and in-depth critique of theism and atheism, which it turned out to be not at all. His clear and often humorous debunking of the obvious inconsistencies and absurdities in the Bible is fun reading, but I feel certain that many theologians could counter these arguments. Most of the arguments assume a literal interpretation of Scripture. That said, Bugliosi does present some good points about the craziness, and sometimes arrogance and thoughtlessness, embedded in a belief in a personal God.

When it comes to his attempt at skewering the prominent atheist writers Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, he is not very successful, criticizing Dawkins, for instance, for being too shallow in his philosophical discussion--but Bugliosi tries to take one or two comments by each of these authors and dispute them, while ignoring much of what they had actually said. So Bugliosi does a shallow and incomplete job of critiquing these purportedly shallow books. Harris's book "The End of Faith" is mostly a condemnation of religion, not as much a denial of the existence of any sort of God. But Bugliosi proceeds to claim that Harris does not present a good case for his atheism. Well, perhaps not, but was that his primary aim here?

The worst and truly embarrassing chapter in Bugliosi's book is Chapter 5, in which he attempts (and utterly fails) to discuss evolution. (First of all, one does not have to use evolution as a case for or against God; natural selection does not require God to function, but it does not deny the possibility either.) I must sympathize with the previous reviewer who said he/she almost did not continue reading the book after encountering the puerile and clueless arguments in this chapter. To borrow one of Bugliosi's favorite adjectives, his ignorance of evolutionary biology is unbelievable! It may be that he read some of Darwin, but it is painfully obvious that he did no more than skim the table of contents of any other respected authors of books on evolutionary biology.

Bugliosi even admits he is ignorant on the subject of evolution, and makes numerous statements to the effect that he "can't imagine" anything like a Mozart evolving from a bacterium. In fact, Bugliosi has not even a 7th grader's understanding of evolution by natural selection, and he would best have left out this chapter entirely. The depth of his ignorance on this subject is staggering, for an intelligent and educated man. I was appalled to see the stupid comment about man evolving from monkeys (no evolutionist says that) and so why are there still monkeys (please!); a slightly more sophisticated aspect of evolutionary theory, that evolution is not teleological--things are not evolving "toward" something--is totally misunderstood by Bugliosi. In addition, he believes he can debunk the great Stephen Jay Gould's 1400-page text on evolutionary theory by claiming Gould wrote nothing on "how human memory evolved". And, I suppose because he couldn't think of any more to fill in the chapter, he ends it with an extended account of the antics of his favorite cat.

The whole point of Bugliosi's book--making a case for agnosticism--is completely lost in these confused and ridiculous chapters on atheists and evolution.

The book is amusing, and had Bugliosi done his homework on the current atheist writers and evolutionary biology, it might have been a worthwhile read.

If you are some one always looking to be challenged both intellectually and spiritually, Mr. Bugliosi's latest book, "Divinity of Doubt", is a perfect choice. The basic premise of the God question is one for the ages. Combining an ability to delve deeply into research and to present material in a compelling manner, the author creates material to stimulate contemplation and conversation. Whether one is a strict believer or a hard core athiest, this book has something for everyone, though possibly not to either's group's liking.

I wish to be pushed from my comfort zone to think freely and question our existence. Religion has been the cornerstone of our society since its' inception. Have you looked at a dollar bill lately? So much of our daily existence is effected by our beliefs and actions. The author has much to say and does so in a succinct manner that uses logic to present his "case". You may not be swayed by the agnostic's approach questioning your own spiritual beliefs, but you certainly will walk away with some food for thought.

Form the guy who couldn't finish off Manson and believes that Oswald was the lone gunman this time Vincent tries to prosecute God. In a recent radio interview he mentioned an atheistic title that sold over a million copies. Sounds like old Vince wants a piece of the action, but a theologian he is not...

First of all let me say I've not read this book in its entirety. I thus am not qualified to review this book in the normal sense. What I do wish to register, though, is a response I have to the writing style of Mr. Bugliosi in my initial scanning of the book. I am qualified to do that, without having yet read the book as a whole.

I should also note that I am a practicing agnostic, a phrase I enjoy using because it is an assertion of belief, rather than a denial of someone else's. Also, I accept evolution as a truth uncovered by science, in the same sense that science has discovered our solar system to be heliocentric, vs. geocentric as was generally accepted prior to Copernicus' work. I have devoted over 15 years of my life to the study of Christianity and to the philosophy of religion. This occurred in various academic settings, in the pursuit of three degrees. Those years were followed by more casual and avocational periods of study, as I have fashioned my own response to the literature. This response, as stated above, is a form of agnostic belief.

What I find offensive is not the author's belief system. Nor is it his rigorous attacks on the Christian church and the position of faith within religions in general, much of which I would concur with. Simply put, I think his message gets lost, or at least seriously compromised, by the medium of his writing style. His sentences run on and on into tomorrow or the day after. Though grammatically correct, they are cumbersome to read and the reader's mind is strained just to understand what Mr. Bugliosi is trying to say. This strain occurs before the reader can even draw any conclusions of agreement or disagreement with the author.

Instead of the medium being the carrier of a message so that the reader immediately understands the message, the reader has to work overtime. First, what is the message that is being stated. Where is the subject that has become lost three or even five lines above the verb? I'm not exaggerating. Often the full predication in a sentence comes dragging along at the end, after the subject has been modified to death by an overuse of adjectives, adverbs, and appositional phrases. The reader first has to clear this initial ground of discovery. "What did he just say?" Then he or she must go back over the statement in order to ask what is his or her response to what is being asserted.

I would agree that writing in the field of philosophy or philosophy of religion is inherently difficult to do well. The writer is not dealing with nuts and bolts, but with what makes a nut a nut, and a bolt a bolt. However, that intrinsic challenge should call us to exercise greater rather than lesser care with our choice of words and sentence structure. It should not serve as an excuse to get away with the kind of sloppy language the reader runs into in these pages.

Perhaps, one might counter, I as a potential reader should not use this argument as an excuse for avoiding a thorough examination of Mr. Bugliosi's monograph. It is, after all, the kind of literature that keeps my mind actively engaged in the pursuit of truth. And occasionally a book like this will catapult to the top of my reading list. I will most likely get to this book in full. But not until it comes out in paperback. And not until I finish another four or five volumes sitting on my desk that are also in the same field of inquiry.

The author in this case will have to wait his turn, if he gets a turn at all.

Brilliant for a faux diamond of a book.
Brilliant because it counteracts the literalism of similar evangelical writers.
Faux diamond because it totally neglects the mythopoetic-metaphysical-philosophical aspects of his subject ... God. The author appears to acknowledge the concept "spirit" while negating "soul". and even misreads Plato's words, by not recognizing that, "...'that which moves itself" (Phaedrus) and the Mosaic (Burning Bush story) "I AM" quotation refer to the same idea: that 'God is a verb function, an operation'.

Bugliosi is a good trial lawyer who has no knowledge or learning about what he writes. If he had spent at least a little time around a seminary or university where the issues in his book are topics for study and discussion he would know that the bible is not intended to be literally understood or applied. A little exposure to learned scholars with many years of study would be helpful. His book reaches a conclusion that is acceptable but for all the wrong reasons. He applies left brain logic to a source that requires right brain insights. Not easy for lawyers who make common sense arguments based on logic of their own making.

Bugliosi did not try to debunk "the great Stephen Gould" as one reviewer put it. He was merely curious the
role of human memory was not mentioned in his 1400 page book on evolutionary theory,a valid point. I only
wish that 7th graders knew as much about evolution as is suggested by this reviewer.

Are we really here? What is truth? Tolstoy has been quoted as saying, "As long as there is death there can be no truth."

As long as we're here we
keep searching. Some of us do anyway.

This is another great book by a man with loads of common sense and a big heart. Bugliosi adds to the conversation

and I love this kind of discourse. I believe that Bugliosi is right, agnosticism is the only logical stance. He gives good reasons for this approach to life and God.

The book is well written and humorous and I really like his description of his cat.

BTW the best book ever written on evolution is "Galapagos" by Kurt Vonnegut. The best modern book written about Christ is "Miss Lonelyhearts" by Nathanael West.

I heard the author on the radio and he sounded very smart. I had high expectations for his book. I haven't finished the book, but so far I have found it somewhat boring. His sarcasm is wearing thin as well. Does anyone know of another book on agnosticism that is really good?

Bugliosi's attempt is quite facile. He should read Chesterton on anthropology and comparative religion, especially in The Everlasting Man and then laugh at what he has written. Faith is a gift, and this man doesn't have it. So, he has a right to his opinion, and that's what this book is, mostly opinion. On the other hand, I'm also aware of prosecutors who have sent the wrong man to prison based on scanty or manipulated evidence and opinion.

YES THIS GUY MUST BE TAKING THE DRUGS THEY FOUND AT THE RANCH. HIS BRAIN IS FRIED. EVEN A PERSON WHO MAY NOT BE CHRISTIAN OR DOES BELIEVE IS UPSET WITH THIS BOOK. I THINK THIS GUY MUST BE BROKE AND IS HOPING TO GET MONEY FOR THIS " CRAP' IF HE DOES OUR SOCIETY HAS FALLEN WAY BACK TO THE DAYS OF THE APES WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE STILL HERE HA! ALIITLE ATTEMPT AT HUMOR.SERIOUSLY DO NOT PAY FOR THIS BOOK DO NOT EVEN READ THIS FOR FREE UNLESS YOU WANT TO FEEL, LOOK,OR BECOME " STUPIDDDDDDD

So now Bugliosi is a theologian and a philosopher! I think not, and most odd is the strange example of how humanity could dare God to demonstrate his existence with some bizarre "I dare you to strike me dead" scenario.

What is it with Lawyers who think they know everything?

Childish, at best, and ignores the fact that Sinclar Lewis...the author of Elmer Gantry...tried that exact same stunt right here in Kansas City back in the 20's.

I would like to clear up a few things on Jesus as he was resurrected from the dead. When you read a scripture from Matthew when Matthew said the ground shook and the dead rose from the dead. You read into the words. What the words met Jesus death and shook everyone who believed in the Jesus, the ground shook was the cries from believers that were angry of Jesus death. When they saw dead people walking, the mourning of Jesus death was heart felt and the people faith and hope rose them from doubt. You have to remember, in those days people spoke in a rhythmic tone. So you have read and understand the words not analyze the words like a court case. I would like debate on more of the Bible with you with level heads on the words. I saw you on Morning Joe (MSNBC) and read your book.